The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper valuation of the suit property for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perused the judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial question of law is framed:

Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in returning the memorandum of appeal to the appellants holding that it has no monetary jurisdiction, ignoring the relevant provisions of law under Sections 41, 49, 50 and 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and also Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

3. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience, ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court is retained.

4. Though the respondents/defendants are served with the notice, they remained absent and unrepresented. The above substantial question of law is framed and heard simultaneously.

5. The moot question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court without following the procedure and also without looking into the relevant provisions has disposed of the appeal in a shortcut method by ordering to return the memorandum of appeal to the appellants which is illegal. Therefore, he pleaded before this Court to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal considering the merits of the case.

6. Brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.100/2010 filed a suit against the defendants (respondents herein) for recovery of rent amount of Rs.4,000/- and also for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners and the defendants are the tenants of the suit premises. The defendants appeared before the Court and contested the proceedings by filing their written statement. Even they have gone to the extent of denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also denied the relationship as that of landlord and tenant. There is no necessity for this Court to go in detail with regard to the pleadings and evidence of the parties on merits of the case. It would suffice to extract the issues framed by the Trial Court and the findings given therein only to ascertain what exactly the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to its jurisdiction which in-turn creates jurisdiction to the appellate Court to deal with the appeals.

7. The Trial Court considering the contentious pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the suit property, as partners of M/s. Deshpande Shankarrao and Company gave up their right and interest over the suit property in favour of plaintiffs?

2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that their father Malhar Rao Solapurkar was partner in Rukmangad Mantap Karyalaya and defendant-1 being the close friend of the father of the plaintiffs continued Mantap business in the suit property as an yearly tenant?

3. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they have legally terminated the tenancy of defendants from 1.10.2008?

4. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for the relief as prayed in the plaint?

5. Whether defendants prove that defendant-1 trespassed into suit go-down on 1.1.1965 and raised construction with the full knowledge of owners and thereafter started his Mantap business?

6. Whether defendants further prove that suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation?

7. Whether defendants further prove that the market value of the suit property as on the date of suit was Rs.23,45,244/-, hence, Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is improper and insufficient?

8. What order or decree?

8. The Trial Court after considering the oral and the documentary evidence on record adduced and produced by the parties has given findings on the issues i.e., issue Nos.1 to 7 in the negative and